5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sokołόw Małopolski.
6.  The applicant is a single mother and has three children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed by the same company for twenty years and paid social security contributions to the State.
7.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”.
8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from chronic asthma (przewlekła astma oskrzelowa) and that she had been in need of her parent’s constant care.
9.  On 29 January 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 593 Polish zlotys (PLN).
10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until 1 March 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The applicant resigned from her job.
11.  On an unspecified date Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 16 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.
12.  On 27 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.
13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.
14.  On 1 August 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) allowed the appeal and granted the applicant the EWK pension. The SSB appealed against the judgment.
15.  On 19 March 2003 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration.
16.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court upheld the SSB’s decision of 27 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against it. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.
17.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment.
18.  On 26 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
19.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
20.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early‑retirement pension.
21.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension she had not received any unemployment or other benefits from the State.
22.  The Government submitted that between 29 August 2006 and 24 August 2009 the applicant has been intermittently employed and was receiving a salary of approximately PLN 11,000 per year. In 2010 the applicant received unemployment benefit for a few months. In addition, the Government maintained that the applicant has been receiving child support payment, apparently from the father of her children, in the amount of PLN 7,500 per year. However, it is not clear how long she has been receiving such payment.
23.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s two adult children have been employed since 2006. Moreover, the child in respect of whom the applicant had been granted the EWK pension, now aged 21, started working in 2009.
24.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation.
25.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2022.
26.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region.
27.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty‑four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case.
28.  One hundred‑and‑four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty‑one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.